originally posted by: justneo
... but tor has been compromised for a while now.

Based on...?

Google, who created tor and it says.

"The core principle of Tor, "onion routing", was developed in the mid-1990s by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees, mathematician Paul
Syverson and computer scientists Michael G. Reed and David Goldschlag, with the purpose of protecting U.S. intelligence communications online."

Do you really think in 20 or so years the "Government" agencies
Haven't figured out a "back door" in tor. If they already haven't had one from the beginning?

Think about it for a second.
They created it with the intentions of hiding their information you'd think the creators of the system would be the only ones to know how to "crack"
the system. And Even if they built it with the intentions of it not being able to be cracked, look at the advancement of computer technology that we
get to enjoy as a society and then realise what kind of computer technology the Government would use in this day and age, you still really think tor
hasn't been compromised?

I think Crypto currency is a different story however although I'm not all that familiar with how it works but I would think that it's the reason
purchases are untraceable when it comes to the combination of tor and using Bitcoin together,
but correct me if I'm wrong about that.

you are wrong. Bitcoin is traceable, and TOR is the biggest honeypot ever. Do not trust it. Do not use it. I personally can deanonymize about 80% of
traffic on it, and im not a nation state =)

Thanks for that information. It really explained some aspects I did not understand well at all. Curious; when browsing within Tor, is it difficult to
avoid exit nodes? Or is there a way to determine if clicking/visiting somewhere would take one out of the Tor browser?

And btw, I'm chuckling that the last sentence in my recent post was "There's more to the story than just red or blue and this topic definitely
concerns everyone. " and "everyone" was the next poster.

@Indigo5:

I'm glad you asked. No. This did not originate on funnyjunk.com. I was concerned some might think that. The post originated on 8chan(4chan?, 17chan?),
but I'm unfamiliar with browsing any chan-related site. Something I apparently need to brush up on. The funnyjunk.com just had the image clearly
posted and put that first so that people could go to an actual site rather than just linking the image, which I also did.

Some updates:

A Reddit user (Virtualclownpanda) posted this:

"WikiLeaks emailprovider Riseup.net haven't updated their canary in 97 days.
A canary is confirmation that they have not been compromised, been slapped with a subpeona etc.
11th of November they posted this on Twitter: LINK
Thoughts?

Found this in another sub but imo its worth discussing here as Riseup.net is connected to WL."

And THIS LINK was also posted in that thread, stating they "have no plans to pull
the plug."

MOST Importantly, Milo Yiannopoulos (thanks to you if read!) continues to explore this topic and offers more leads and pertinent
information as well. LINK
This could be really good news... or not considering internet trust issues these days.

The article on his site states that a "Bitcoin address connected to WikiLeaks sent out a series of payments with a hidden message coded into them
which reads, “We’re Fine. 8 Chan Post [is] Fake.”

Milo states and asks:
"The blockchain that contains it is apparently owned by WikiLeaks – and they have evidently used it to spread secret messages before, according to
Bitcoin experts on this Reddit forum."

"But why would WikiLeaks choose to do that for a message as important as one related to the wellbeing of their staff? Further, can we be sure the
Bitcoin account wasn’t compromised?"
"So what, then, is the purpose of the Bitcoin ledger message? Are we to assume that the organization’s Twitter page is compromised and they have no
other means of communicating?"

It just keeps getting weirder.

edit on 22-11-2016 by gottaknow because: bolded for effect

edit on 22-11-2016 by gottaknow because: increased font size for
effect too. Cuz I can and I haven't done that before and it was neat.

I could definitely see those allegations about the global child pedophile ring and drug operations being run by the CIA being possible. I admit,
something strange is going on at Wikileaks. I can also corroborate - from what I know about the NSA, they would be spying on the CIA.

From the original article, the OP there outlines some things that Wikileaks was going to be exposing and that they got compromised. There is also a
contingency plan that involves physical travel. This could be real or it could be a hoax, hard to know.

You don't need a backdoor for tor lol.
You just need to be an entry node as well as an exit node then you can decrypt all traffic passing through your nodes - or so I have heard.

TOR has never been 'secure'' in the true sense. I've just never been able to discern why law enforcement agencies around the world don't catch more
evil people using TOR, it's all there for the taking?

Depending on your level of belief, there has been bust using Tor, specifically through seizure and rerouting of exit nodes. Operation Onymous was one
but then you get into some he-said-she-said on a grand federal scale. The FBI and LEO says they have tons of exit nodes while Lewman said it was more
likely they had a handful and used non Dark Net investigation to make bust (such as bitcoin following and old fashioned police work).

I don't know how ANYONE would ever trust anything other than some literally direct connection or at the least a privatized, self-run air connection to
do their business. Tor is amazing, but there are so many working parts to exploit and I think even if the DOJ and FBI overblow the amount of exit
nodes they took, document releases show they had at least some....so why would there be any doubt that Tor wasn't unsafe?

I got on Tor one time and the only thing I ever did was go to their deep net Wiki site....saw the page...walked right back out. Not that I had any
interest in illegal activities, but I like learning about things like that. I don't think I would ever trust anything electronic in making a drug
purchase or murder-for-hire buy.

Wikileaks has put up the 8chan image on my FB feed now with a Statement saying: *
"There are Black-PR campaigns going around recently trying to suppress submissions to WikiLeaks. They are false, but who is behind them?"

It's a response. Reading the comments below it indicate a large number of followers do NOT buy this statement with many asking for proof that Assange
is alive.

*I don't know if posting the link will allow others to connect to my FB feed, so I didn't post it. It should be available to anyone's FB that have
Wikileaks followed, which I presume anyone following this thread would have if they go on FB.

What I cant believe about this matter is how easily fooled people are. The Ecuadorean embassy said they had cut Assanges internet service.

Have these people who believe Assanges internet was cut never heard of wireless computer connection?

How could they not have thought that Assanges supporters would have found a way to get him a connection again one way or another??

Even if the embassy staff removed the internet receptor hardware from the computer, then if one bimbo can get into an embassy to take some bloke a
meal, surely another bimbo could also get in to take him a meal....... and also something else.

Are people so stupid that they cannot see that this story about the broken interent is only to mask the fact he wont be seen for some time, if again
which I strongly doubt.

It is pointless for somebody like me to use Tor. It is for subversive people who are up to no good.

Really? I use Tor on a regular basis (in fact one laptop runs a Tor/VPN combo exclusively) and I'm certainly not "up to no good".

Saying only bad people use Tor is like saying only racists voted for Trump. Plenty of people do both as a matter of principle.

The difficulty with labeling people is that eventually the labels will extend to you. After all, only "subversive people who are up to no good"
congregate on ATS and post under usernames that hide their real identity from the world, right? Good people would surely post their full name and
address in their sigline...

As a matter of course everything is assumed compromised. In spycraft isn't it always said (in the movies at least) 'trust no one'? That is the only
sane realistic assuption to make vis a vis the media. And by media I mean anything we obtain via the internet, not just conventional broadcast radio
or TV.

"Trust no one" is so much the more applicable if we live in a simulation universe -- but even if that theory is not certain, Wag the Dog is
certainly a template for what is already going on. Julian et. al. are not above manipulating public opinion for whatever personal reason. To assume
otherwise would be naive and foolish. It's quite possible that Pizzagate is an ultrasophisticated exercise in legal libel. How do we know any of those
messages ever got sent?

I know. I have been following this for a few weeks now and every day, I keep expecting something... ANYTHING... to show up in MSM, but nope - nothing.
JA is almost a national hero here (in Aus), so I'm floored by the total lack of concern. It's crazy!

I do not have understanding of these hacks or codes myself, but perhaps someone here can make use of it.

lavaliere goes on to say:

"This means Wikileaks has been compromised for almost all of this year, that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker and a martyr, that there's another unknown
to us leaker/martyr, and that Wikileaks is effectively dead."

"On second thought, the second leaker might be the missing former Clinton Foundation CEO, Eric Braverman"

Did anyone else listen to Steve Peczienik(sp?) on the Alex Jones show a week or so ago? He claimed that he and his former CIA colleagues have been
working with Wikileaks throughout the election to get Trump elected. I'm almost 100% sure he said they were WL's source for all the Clinton and DNC
stuff...I remember thinking "holy sh*t" when he said it.

This could very well be disinfo, which begs the question what is the motive for it. Or maybe it's true. I need to go back and listen to it again
because though I'm not quite sure how yet, this is an important piece of the puzzle.

Yea, I'm sure Assange would have a sim card or 2 hidden in the sole of his shoe, and should be able to stick it in a laptop, phone etc. and hack his
way onto the cell network? Unless 'cutting the internet' means confiscating any and all electronic devices?

I have serious doubts about this man breathing at this current point in time.
Maybe they are just prepping the Clinton owned, Assange clone?
Hehe

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.